Power to Mick Lynch

Soldato
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
13,290
Nice try.. Labour always want more:
- £80k+ proposed to be 45% vs Tories 40%
- And a higher 50% tier at £125K (Tories are 45% at 150K)

Not that I support the Tories taxation either.. I think I'm saying we are screwed either way.

The one thing in terms of tiered tax rates I struggle with is my salary (fairly generous) covers the entire household.. there are many people I know that have the same household income as we do, but have a substantially lower tax burden.. I'd really like to see a household/family unit be treated fairly as such..

And I don't get the notion that earning £80k (for example) suddenly means you deserve a higher tax rate.. that's not a mechanism aimed at fat cats, but workers.. (even if well paid).. Labour predicted 6% of the workforce will shortly earn north of £80k.. IMO I have no problems with those 'workers' that contribute more to the growth of a company that employs more people and spends more with supply chain etc should not get the wrath of envy thrown on them.. I'd say you want to be careful of stifling a meritocracy so quickly unless you want the race to bottom and all that brings with it..
So, where do we get the required funding from to fix our broken public services, increase productivity, and encourage economic growth?

Or do we just continue slashing budgets until there's nothing left of the NHS, care system, or anything else that contributes to the UK being a desirable place to live?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
28,080
Location
Surrey
Millions of small violins are playing the sweetest of songs. C’mon if you’re earning that much then you have broader shoulders. Some people have to worry about how to heat and eat, not how to avoid them paying excess tax above 100k.
I wasn't extolling the rights or wrongs or suggesting people in that lucky position should be pitied. I was simply explaining that we have a 60% tax bracket in this country that the government have hidden because they know it would be unpopular for them to frame it in the correct way.

OK, given these three options which would you choose? Be honest:

1) Earn over £100k and give 60% of some of that money to the government.
2) Earn £99k and choose to spend more time with your wife and kids (or on your hobbies) instead of giving away 60% of the above threshold amount.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,545
Location
Newcastle
I think you'll always find it a weird argument if you think 40% less for the same work is ok because it's greater than zero. I prefer to take the additional time off as opposed to losing the basic rate, but it's not always feasible due to trying to arrange cover etc.

Handing over 60% of my wages in tax is not worth my effort, and don't forget the NI too.

Not every promotion comes with additional hours\stress. In my industry the majority of individuals paid more than 100k are paid that amount for decision making, and accountability rather than absolute workload. However if an individual has a choice of earning more or having more free time then they're in a good position. You're in the 96th percentile of earners before you start to lose your tax free allowance.

As for tax rates, if you're in the top 6% of earners you're basically winning the capitalist game. Paying a little more tax to keep the game going and perpetuate your winning doesn't seem like such a hardship. I'd be happy to be taxed more to fund the NHS better, bring back policies like Sure Start and fund energy caps etc. But I'm a champagne socialist so that's a given. :p
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,545
Location
Newcastle
I wasn't extolling the rights or wrongs or suggesting people in that lucky position should be pitied. I was simply explaining that we have a 60% tax bracket in this country that the government have hidden because they know it would be unpopular for them to frame it in the correct way.

OK, given these three options which would you choose? Be honest:

1) Earn over £100k and give 60% of some of that money to the government.
2) Earn £99k and choose to spend more time with your wife and kids (or on your hobbies) instead of giving away 60% of the above threshold amount.

The threshold isn't even 100k really. Individuals earning that amount are probably putting 10%+ of their salary into a pension, and also potentially benefiting from salary sacrifice schemes. So it's actually much higher in reality.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
28,080
Location
Surrey
The threshold isn't even 100k really. Individuals earning that amount are probably putting 10%+ of their salary into a pension, and also potentially benefiting from salary sacrifice schemes. So it's actually much higher in reality.
Yes which is why I said earlier that people who can push the increase into their pension would do so.

At some point, if you are lucky enough to keep increasing your pay, then the 60% tax rate hits you. The government should call it a 60% rate but they won't because they know it would be unpopular.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,545
Location
Newcastle
Yes which is why I said earlier that people who can push the increase into their pension would do so.

At some point, if you are lucky enough to keep increasing your pay, then the 60% tax rate hits you. The government should call it a 60% rate but they won't because they know it would be unpopular.

Agreed. It's intentionally misleading.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2010
Posts
21,555
Location
Lincs
Nice try.. Labour always want more:
- £80k+ proposed to be 45% vs Tories 40%
- And a higher 50% tier at £125K (Tories are 45% at 150K)
Now what you said (and I will be pedantic here ;) ) is that under Labour people would pay twice the tax, that looks like 5% more to me :p

Whereas I was talking in principle about the difference between a progressive system, which we have and a flat rate system, which I know is popular with some. I'm pretty pro a progressive system but Dolph has interesting ideas on a flat rate system with negative income tax.

But people just seem to focus on direct taxes, whereas it's the overall burden thats important and as mentioned that's running at an all time high and we still have services cut to the bone!

Not that I support the Tories taxation either.. I think I'm saying we are screwed either way.
Yea, I assumed by your tone you were against a tiered rate in principle.

The one thing in terms of tiered tax rates I struggle with is my salary (fairly generous) covers the entire household.. there are many people I know that have the same household income as we do, but have a substantially lower tax burden.. I'd really like to see a household/family unit be treated fairly as such..
Completely agree and it is a bit of a weakness in our tax system, especially as other family benefits work on the same principle, which leads to a lot of unfairness.

And I don't get the notion that earning £80k (for example) suddenly means you deserve a higher tax rate.. that's not a mechanism aimed at fat cats, but workers.. (even if well paid).. Labour predicted 6% of the workforce will shortly earn north of £80k.. IMO I have no problems with those 'workers' that contribute more to the growth of a company that employs more people and spends more with supply chain etc, they are a positive contributor to the economy and should not get the wrath of envy thrown on them.. I'd say you want to be careful of stifling a meritocracy so quickly unless you want a race to bottom and all that brings with it..
Again, theres a difference in discussing where the tier should be and whether there should be a tier at all.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
19,065
Location
Lanarkshire
As for tax rates, if you're in the top 6% of earners you're basically winning the capitalist game. Paying a little more tax to keep the game going and perpetuate your winning doesn't seem like such a hardship. I'd be happy to be taxed more to fund the NHS better, bring back policies like Sure Start and fund energy caps etc. But I'm a champagne socialist so that's a given. :p

It's easy to be altruistic when it's hypothetical choices. Also, brainstorming how to spend other people's money is very easy.

As for your point about how a person ends up breaking the threshold, it's irrelevant because taking unpaid leave will always result in a salary reduction in exchange for more time with the family. For me personally, it's a no brainer.

By the way, FWIW I think anyone on PAYE is paying their fair share as it is. The people who should be paying more are those that are earning way above the threshold as they are rarely PAYE and generally paying much less than they would be if they were.

Our tax system is very unfair, but it's not the PAYE contributions that are at the root of that.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
4,622
Location
South West
I wasn't extolling the rights or wrongs or suggesting people in that lucky position should be pitied. I was simply explaining that we have a 60% tax bracket in this country that the government have hidden because they know it would be unpopular for them to frame it in the correct way.

OK, given these three options which would you choose? Be honest:

1) Earn over £100k and give 60% of some of that money to the government.
2) Earn £99k and choose to spend more time with your wife and kids (or on your hobbies) instead of giving away 60% of the above threshold amount.
Perhaps it came across the wrong way from me. For me it would be option 2 all day long. As I say to my misses, I work to live not live to work.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
7,432
Location
Near Cheltenham
Now what you said (and I will be pedantic here ;) ) is that under Labour people would pay twice the tax, that looks like 5% more to me :p

Whereas I was talking in principle about the difference between a progressive system, which we have and a flat rate system, which I know is popular with some. I'm pretty pro a progressive system but Dolph has interesting ideas on a flat rate system with negative income tax.

But people just seem to focus on direct taxes, whereas it's the overall burden thats important and as mentioned that's running at an all time high and we still have services cut to the bone!


Yea, I assumed by your tone you were against a tiered rate in principle.


Completely agree and it is a bit of a weakness in our tax system, especially as other family benefits work on the same principle, which leads to a lot of unfairness.


Again, theres a difference in discussing where the tier should be and whether there should be a tier at all.
:) You are correct.. I did say 'twice as much'...

I am actually OK with our current tiered system, but am against the constant push to lower tier thresholds and increase each tiers taxation rate.

I might be naïve and dreaming a bit, but I would rather see a meaningful reform of public services so that if we want to further increase tax burdens on individuals we won't just be throwing it in to a bottomless abyss..
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Posts
5,814
In principle I'd like to see much more of a tax curve than the current steps.

I'd also say that £100k pa earners these days isn't the sort of 'rich' I'd be looking to tax more heavily.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
22,606
Location
Boston, Lincolnshire
Another 30% will allow them to work 2 days a week rather than 3 :cry:

This is actually true. When I had my medical for my class 1 licence I went to a semi retired private doctor. We got chatting about the NHS and it incensed him with rage. He said even his own daughter was at it contracting part time 3 days a week for 50k a year. :cry: He said everyone leaches off the NHS like no tomorrow.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
5,545
Location
Newcastle
It's easy to be altruistic when it's hypothetical choices. Also, brainstorming how to spend other people's money is very easy.

As for your point about how a person ends up breaking the threshold, it's irrelevant because taking unpaid leave will always result in a salary reduction in exchange for more time with the family. For me personally, it's a no brainer.

By the way, FWIW I think anyone on PAYE is paying their fair share as it is. The people who should be paying more are those that are earning way above the threshold as they are rarely PAYE and generally paying much less than they would be if they were.

Our tax system is very unfair, but it's not the PAYE contributions that are at the root of that.

It's not a hypothetical choice for me, one of the reasons I'm comfortable advocating for it.

Agreed on PAYE not being the main cause of the issue though.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Dec 2004
Posts
13,290
This is actually true. When I had my medical for my class 1 licence I went to a semi retired private doctor. We got chatting about the NHS and it incensed him with rage. He said even his own daughter was at it contracting part time 3 days a week for 50k a year. :cry: He said everyone leaches off the NHS like no tomorrow.
£320 a day? It's really not a lot for a very skilled, stressful job. I can get double that sitting on my arse at home writing code.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Posts
19,065
Location
Lanarkshire
It's not a hypothetical choice for me, one of the reasons I'm comfortable advocating for it.
Fair enough, but the grammar you used didn't convey that (and I don't mean that to sound argumentive, I'm just explaining why I assumed :) )

...if you're in the top 6% of earners you're basically winning the capitalist game...

...I'd be happy to be taxed more to fund the NHS better...
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,648
Agree you're not worse off and that you're earning more. But typically, in many jobs, to push above the £100k mark needs a lot of effort and accompanying stress. Let's say working unpaid overtime most weekends (common in my industry and role) would get you a promotion and a £10k payrise, then all you would actually see of that would be £4k. Maybe it's not to be sniffed at. But in the example I just gave you would need to sacrifice many weekends to do that. I'd rather have the free time and spend it with my family.
Don't forget those earning over £100k with kids have another dimension to this - if they tip of a penny, they lose their 30hrs free/£2k topup. So £6k over £100k = like 200 quid.

Edit: £100k = £65.6k take home, if they earn £106k and have kids = £67.8k take home; less £2k 'perk' = £200
 
Top Bottom